Evaluating your own photographs

Hi Michael, I feel no threat.

I'm actually surprised you held back from responding for as long as you did. Yes I did know what I was saying was confrontational. Here on APUG, all of us occasionally get called upon the mat to atone for what we have contributed, and I felt that despite your "fame", you shouldn't be immune from that.

It's my impression that what I quoted you as saying was a tad over the top, grandiose, and smacked of name-dropping. The rest was good advice. Maybe it's my intrinsic Canadian sensibilities...as a Nation, we prefer the self-deprecating famous person to the grandiose famous person.

Michael A. Smith said:

I just reread your contribution to this thread. As part of it you wrote, "When has a print really become a Fine Print? (That last one is my current personal battle)." So you have not figured this out for yourself yet. Not definitively. And you offered suggestions on how someone else might do what you have not yet figured out. To me, that is arrogant and egotistical. To the max.

Click to expand...

To be fair...to the max...I didn't offer David any advice on Fine Prints. What I did offer was a way to organize ones thoughts and ones images...as was requested by him.

Concerning Fine Prints...I've been at this long enough to know that what I considered a Fine Print 5 years ago is quite different from what I can do now. In 5 more years I expect to be in the same position, which is to say, that my ability to print is continually evolving and improving. This has led me to question exactly *what* a Fine Print is. To definitively know what a Fine Print is, is to be stagnant as an artist, don't you think?

I've come to the conclusion that what one considers a Fine Print throughout ones career as a photographer, is akin to a recurrent role throughout ones career as a stage actor. An actor would draw upon decades of life and acting experience to fully flesh out and add layers of complexity to his/her interpretation of a role done decades earlier, or, they may dispense with the heroics and let the simplicity of the character shine.

If we print a negative exactly the same way as we did decades earlier, or if we become so confident in our abilities that there is no reason to strive to improve can we still call them Fine Prints? I don't think so. My job is to continually question all aspects of my art and my craft, to strive for clarification of my way of seeing, and to let others decide which they prefer.

Michael A. Smith said:

You also wrote, "By concentrating on what you *know* is your best will give you a little breathing space, and you can look at them and try to answer for yourself what makes them your best." This advice is useless.

Click to expand...

All I did was to suggested a way to narrow the possibilities - a way of leaving the strongest images behind to learn from. If, as you say, editing is so important to a photographer, how can this be bad advice? Is yours the only true way? To think so would again, be grandiose.

Murray

Thank you, David. I needed that. I don't know what it is with some people. If someone knows something they just want to bring them down to their level.

Murray,

Well, I am happy to turn this into a real discussion rather than a character attack. I'll ignore that portion of your response that was a character attack. You wrote, "To definitively know what a Fine Print is, is to be stagnant as an artist, don't you think?"

No, I don't so think. Once you know, really know what you are doing regarding making a fine print, you just keep making them. There does come a point where your prints do not become any better because they cannot become any better. Do you think Edward Weston would have printed his negatives of shells and peppers any differently had he reprinted them in 1947? If you do, you are mistaken.

That is not to say that there may be a number of ways to print a negative that would yield equally fine results.

Now, what does change and grow, hopefully, but in fact with most photographs does not, is one's vision. (John Szarkowski wrote in " Looking at Photographs" that the "genuinely creative period of most photographers has rarely exceeded ten or fifteen years.") If one's vision does not grow and change, there is stagnation. But that has nothing to do with knowing what a fine print is. If after five years (okay, ten years) anyone does not know what a fine print is they have not been looking at fine prints by the masters and comparing their own prints to them and they don't really know what they are doing.

Fo you, what a fine print is may change. That's okay. But that is not the way it is for everyone. There does come a point when an artist arrives at technical and expressive excellence. For a visual artist, one's vision can always grow, but one's technical excellence, after a period of time, should be at its peak. And once it is at its peak it simply cannot get any better.

From Murray: "All I did was to suggested a way to narrow the possibilities - a way of leaving the strongest images behind to learn from. If, as you say, editing is so important to a photographer, how can this be bad advice? Is yours the only true way? To think so would again, be grandiose."

No, my way is not the only way to properly and objectively evaluate one's own photographs (I never said it was), but your advice, Murray, "By concentrating on what you *know* is your best will give you a little breathing space, and you can look at them and try to answer for yourself what makes them your best," is indeed useless. As I wrote before, it is useless unless knows what to look for and has the vocabulary to evaluate photographs.

Now, if you had written about the things that David should be looking for, then your comment would not have been useless. But as written you comment was no better than the instruction to "make better prints." Unless one knows what qualities make for a fine print--and yes, there are no absolutes about that--what a fine print is for one photographer may be different than what a fine print is for another--the suggestion to "try to answer for yourself what makes them best" will not yield reults. That after what must be several five year periods you still do not definitively know why your best prints are your best is exactly the kind of thing I was writing about--people offering suggestions who do not know, from their own work, what they are talking about. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but regarding things like this, all opinions are not equal.

Paula was asked to give a few portfolio reviews at the recent Large Format Conference in Springfield, Massachesetts. The work she looked at was quite accomplished, but was not quite there--not quite where it could be--although to a quick look it was indeed excellent. (These photographers had regular exhibitions and print sales.) After her reviews two of the people whose photographs she reviewed came up to me and told me that her comments were the most helpful ones they had ever had. Why? Because Paula understands what makes a fine print (both visually and technically) and has the vocabulary to explain it. Most do not.

" ... This advice is useless. Unless one knows what to look for and has the vocabulary to evaluate photographs, the answers will not come readily, if they ever come at all."

The necessity of "having a "vocabulary", and as previously mentioned "writing it down" indicates the presence of a hard copy.

Could someone - anyone - post an example of one of these unemotional, purely objective, "devoid of human bias" evaluations?

I would be very interested in obtaining examples of that vocabulary.

I have looked deep within myself to know myself and found nothing very interesting.

That sounds incredibly sad, and implausible, look some more - you may be suprised!

David said:

That sounds incredibly sad, and implausible, look some more - you may be suprised!

Click to expand...

if i looked any deeper inside i'd be reading the label on my shorts - which, by the way, brings about new distress knowing there are a million jc penny customers running around with my name in their pants.

post-op depression methinks

--
stafford

If you photograph, perhaps you could explore your dark feelings with images that resonate with the feelings you have. In other words acceptance of where you are gives you a rare opportunity to see what it has to offer - it may be a good thing - even though it feels shitty. You don't need to change your feelings, that may happen as a result, however. Doesn't sound like your sense of humor has gone AWOL.

Hi Michael,

Words are slippery things, but it appears I have chosen well in calling your attitude grandiose. Definition one is as you probably see yourself, "imposing; immpressive". Definition two is as I see you, "trying to seem grand; pompous".

I see APUG as a way for like minded individuals that are spread thinly over the planet to freely exchange ideas, where everyone brings their own equally valid interpretations to the table...it seems you are dispensing wisdom from the apex of all accomplishments photographically possible. We are oil and water.

Off to work I go,

Murray

A further question and then a comment.
Michael, you wrote: If one's vision does not grow and change, there is stagnation. But that has nothing to do with knowing what a fine print is.

My question dealt with both aspects that you mention. The vision part, the internal part that gets externalized - how does that get evaluated? The fine print is something I still don't have sufficient experience to judge as I've not seen any other Azo prints to gauge my stuff against what's possible. I think I just stepped in a hole.

Hi Murray, you live in such a cool part of the planet! You said, where everyone brings their own equally valid interpretations to the table... Validity has only to do with the relationship between one's premises and conclusions. It has nothing to say about the merit or truth of either the premises or conclusions. Not all interpretations are equal in merit or truth, even if they are equally valid. e.g., take the argument: King Fred is skinny. King Fred is old. Therefore King Fred is skinny and old. This is valid argument even if King Fred was young and fat and therefore an untrue argument lacking in merit.

... And if King Fred was thirty-five years old. Old or young? "Old" if the prevailing life expectancy is thirty. "Young" if it is ninety.

"Fat" if the average weight is 110 pounds (50 Kg). "Skinny" if 220 lbs.(100 kg.)...???

Unfortunately there are very few "Ultimate Truths" in this world. Even the wisest among us have those who can have "valid arguments" against their theories. Where the truth lies ...?

If I was obsessed with finding the perfect, provable TRUTH, I really do not think that "Art" is a promising place to begin the search.

As we say in Mexico, I'm going to buy the feud.

I agree with Murray, I find the attitude of Michel Smith grandiose :rolleyes: .

David said:

Hi Murray, you live in such a cool part of the planet! You said, where everyone brings their own equally valid interpretations to the table...

Click to expand...

Hi David, YOU live in such a cool part of the planet!! What I meant by the above statement is that in art, there are no absolute truths...one persons soot and chalk out of focus print can be a Fine Print to them if it conveys what it is they want to convey. Their interpretation of what a Fine Print is, is as equally valid as the best contact print. To each their own. There's room for everybody in the pool!

Hi Michael, since I blind-sided you with my post, I'll let you have any parting shots you wish to lob my way and we can let this matter go. Don't hold back - I also am confident in myself, and have thick skin to withstand any barbs. Or then again, ignore me.

Murray

Jose A Martinez said:

...I agree with Murray, I find the attitude of Michel Smith grandiose :rolleyes: .

Click to expand...

So what?

I look at the intentions of a person when they post something. It appears to me that Mr Smith's intent was to give good advice to someone who asked for it.

There are not many who have attained the level of respect and acclaim for their photography that he has, and who choose to offer advice freely on APUG. In New Zealand, we are also rather reserved when speaking about ourselves. But we are also a little prone to the 'Knocking Tall Poppies Syndrome'. Perhaps there is an element of this in these comments about Michael Smith's character?
A test is: Could you say what you post here to the person, if you were sitting across the table from them?

I suspect Mr Smith could - his intent appears genuine. But when someone starts knocking another persons character, it takes rather a good deal of courage to do that to the person without the anonymity of being behind a keyboard and monitor.

Ed,
You appear to be arguing apoint that isn't being discussed "finding the perfect, provable truth'. You hold forth the idea that exactitude is impossible in discussing art because of the nature of perception and language. How can we possibly define skinny, for example. Well any argument taken to its logical extreme ends up in a discussion of semantics, this is basic stuff and doesn't contribute to the discussion in a fruitful way. So no one can disagree with you that finding the one and only view or words to describe something abstract is problematic - but no seems to be suggesting that doing so is possible - it is a red herring argument, or perhaps a straw man. In either case it is diversion or something you have set up because it can be blown down easily. The point is that no one is arguing the point.

The question I began with begs the question that 'a level' of objectivity is possible. Since it is possible how can we achieve that when applied to personal work that has so many subjective connections? So we may come up with a concept of 'skinny' and even with all the academic if not sometimes anal schoolyard banter come to a general agreement of what the concept means. We have no other way to live without overly soft definitions that end up meaning nothing. Meaning and communication are possible, agreeing on every nuance is not - but who is saying that anyway.

Murray, I wan't trying to be academic about narrowing the sense of what is 'valid' but hoped to add a necessary distinction, namely that valid, merit and/or truth are quite separate things and all valid things are not equal.

And...yeah it is good here but I'm coming to Canada for a visit soon, I lived there for 10 years.

John McCallum said:

So what?

I look at the intentions of a person when they post something. It appears to me that Mr Smith's intent was to give good advice to someone who asked for it.

There are not many who have attained the level of respect and aclaim for their photography that he has, and who choose to offer advice freely on APUG. In New Zealand, we are also rather reserved when speaking about ourselves. But we are also a little prone to the 'Knocking Tall Poppies Syndrome'. Perhaps there is an element of this in these comments about Michael Smith's character?
A test is: Could you say what you post here to the person, if you were sitting across the table from them?

I suspect Mr Smith could - his intent appears genuine. But when someone starts knocking another persons character, it takes rather a good deal of courage to do that to the person without the anonymity of being behind a keyboard and monitor.

Click to expand...

Touché, guess not.
Anyway, if I were sitting across the table with them, I surely should enjoy the debate "live and direct".

David said:

Ed,
You appear to be arguing apoint that isn't being discussed "finding the perfect, provable truth'. You hold forth the idea that exactitude is impossible in discussing art because of the nature of perception and language.
[...]

Click to expand...

Art has specific discourse. It is mysterious only to the mystical and uninformed.

This gets more difficult and I think I'll soon retire from it. Who said anything about "defeating our emotional connection to a work"? It is because of the emotional attachment that additional ways of viewing the work become necessary. Additional, Jay, does not mean to defeat it means to add to, not do away with. Discussion becomes near impossible when non-germane, created statements only serve to obfuscate. If it is part of the process for discussion to narrow by defining and excluding - in order to clarify the topic that is good. Some of the comments seem more like throwing dust in the air in a game of personal posturing than staying on topic. Is that useful or necessary?

1) To make emotional distance does not mean that emotion is not valued and it certainly does not mean to defeat it - why would anyone want to? Emotions are part of what links us to any work (even if we hate it). So yes, your use of the term was not germane to anything I found in this lengthy thread. I don't find anything in the quotes you bring to out where emotion must be defeated. We are more than the sum of our feelings and to appreciate our work (including criticism) it seems that we must find things beyond emotion but not leave the emotion behind. This is simple discussion that addresses your expressed thoughts.

2) I wasn't offended by you or the use of 'defeat'. Using the term as you did, as I saw it, was simply contrived inasmuch as it didn't necessarily arise from previous discussion. I did acknowledge the value of eliminating things (like perhaps the notion of defeating emotions) if it was helpful to clarify the topic at hand.

3) There was no hostility implied by mentioning personal posturing, it was an observation that came out of your comment: "I'm always amused by those who continually compliment themselves, or insult others by crediting their statements to a third party". This was a reference to Michael Smith's contribution and you have demonstrated a penchant for pissing on his contributions. To then describe yourself: "I find it very difficult to take those people seriously" can hardly be seen as anything but posturing or comparing and THAT is not useful or necessary. It does not further the discussion but diverts and distracts.

I refuse to go down the path of having this turn into a personal thing. The question on the table is the only thing I'm interested in discussing. Thank you for honoring that!

Murray: "I see APUG as a way for like minded individuals that are spread thinly over the planet to freely exchange ideas, where everyone brings their own equally valid interpretations to the table."

Ah, I see--all interpretations are valid. I'll ask you a question: if you have a medical problem would you go to a doctor you respected or to the first person you ran into on the street? They possibly might have an opinion about your problem. And if all interpretations are valid, then maybe this persons opinion would have as much validity as the doctors. Obviously, this is nonsense--given the choice you would go to the doctor (I assume).

Is it any different in photography? Wouldn't you want to pay more attention to someone who has long experience in the field than to those who may or may not know very much. Well, maybe you wouldn't, because "all interpretations are equally valid," and if that is the case then I can only feel very sorry for you.

Of course, someone's soot and chalk may be perfect for their expression. There was nothing I wrote that implied that a full-scale contact print was THE criteria for which all prints should be evaluated. If you assumed that was what I was saying then you do not read very carefully.

Once again Jay is bothered by my quoting complimentary comments that others have made about me. Envy, envy.

John McCallum. Thanks very much for recognizing publicly that I freely make contributions to APUG from a position of respect in the field. I was about to throw in the towel. When there is a topic I have some expertise in (and there are very few such topics and so I stay out of 98% of them), I freely offer my suggestions. No one need to follow them or pay the slightest attention to them. But to attack me for offering them and to attack me for my quoting others responses to me about similar things they have seen in me is simply mean-spirited and disrespectful. And I do not need that and will not put up with it.

I am not leaving APUG, but if anyone has serious questions they would like to address to me, they can do so by personal email--not a PM through APUG (I never seem able to get to the PMs) or on the Azo Forum at my web site, www.michaelandpaula.com.

David said:

Ed,
You appear to be arguing apoint that isn't being discussed "finding the perfect, provable truth'. You hold forth the idea that exactitude is impossible in discussing art because of the nature of perception and language.

Click to expand...

No I am not. I'm trying to bring attention to the distinction between "subjective" and "objective", no more. "Fat" and "Old" are subjective definitions ... they only have meaning withing the "feeling" that the speaker has toward them.

"A level of objectivity IS possible"??. I disagree. EVEN if objective evaluations were possible, at any level, what PURPOSE would this "objectivity" serve? Establishing some sort of "pecking order"?. Validation for some sort of "hero worship"? Possibly "protection of the Art" -- as if someones "false idea of "good and bad" would be detrimental..?

Or would it be to limit the range of possibilities - to compare other's work to our own concept of goodness... in which. invariably, the speaker would "fit" and the hapless outsider would not?

It has been mentioned the a certain vocabulary is a necessity. I,at least for the moment will not argue that ... I only ask for examples of this vocabulary.

Photo criticism, as in any viable craft or art, requires that the critique identifies the scope of the work, what it speaks to, where it is cast in historical trems, in otherwords it establishes rational discourse. Criticism does not require an opinion such as "like it' or not. In fact, that particular personal opinion is, formally, last in a piece or absent.

Try looking at some work using such an approach.

Hi Ed,
I repeatedly have underscored the subjective essence of our evaluations and brought forward the possibility of discussion about our own work, which by definition involves the possibility of communication or language that encompasses the topic at hand. Even if this dialogue is only internal it still relies on language to make itself clear. It is no different than discussing it with someone else who understands the vocabulary. To reach for and request examples of the vocabulary in order to point out the vocabularies inherent limitations excludes the possibility of discernable knowledge.

The purpose of this self-critique was explicitly stated and has nothing to do with pecking orders, hero worship or hyperbolic notions good or bad. Two criteria have been suggested: 1) personal vision which grows and 2) print evaluation which can benefit by seeing what expression is possible by any chosen medium - in my case, Azo. The first is entirely subjective and the second to the extent to which it carries the intention of the image.

You say, 'they [fat and old] only have meaning withing the "feeling" that the speaker has toward them". 'Fat' and 'old' do have subjective connotations and limits. They ALSO, ALSO, ALSO have denotative meanings that we can all understand even if we don't agree on the particulars or the standards of comparison by which we draw comparitive meaning. If this wasn't true you wouldn't be able to even vaguely identify what was under discussion when the terms were used, but you do understand them. You pointed out their ambiguity, specified their subjective application but did not annihilate or eliminate their place in our common understanding or vocabulary. Frankly, I think you err in limiting them to a purely subjective understanding. Since they persist in our perception, so does a roughly objective standard of their meaning.

Perhaps the friction here is between purely and nominally objective. I'm searching for terms as is often the case when fine nuances are under discussion. That is why, I suspect, a reference to an art vocabulary was referenced earlier. I can appreciate how this vocabulary sometimes becomes precious and pretensious but that misuse does not negate it as a tool for evaluation.

My first thought, expressed in the beginning was about the limits of only being able to say that I liked a particular piece of my work. I do want to know why. I don't want to do this for academic or impractical reasons, and I may not succeed very well in articulating. I also stressed that it is the "I" or self observing the prints who must ultimately be satisfied.

You are putting your thoughts out here for consideration as we all are. The very fact that you are doing so indicates the possibility of understanding your thoughts, clarifying them and hopefully arriving at an understanding. Consensus or approbation is not necessary. If language were so subjective that we couldn't approximate a common understanding then we may as well quit. The misunderstandings that have demonstrated themselves to be a part of this process only indicate the challenges of the task.

Wow, so glad I read this thread. Thanks to some of you, now I don't need to attend my next high school reunion...

John McCallum said:

So what?

I look at the intentions of a person when they post something. It appears to me that Mr Smith's intent was to give good advice to someone who asked for it.

There are not many who have attained the level of respect and acclaim for their photography that he has, and who choose to offer advice freely on APUG. In New Zealand, we are also rather reserved when speaking about ourselves. But we are also a little prone to the 'Knocking Tall Poppies Syndrome'. Perhaps there is an element of this in these comments about Michael Smith's character?
A test is: Could you say what you post here to the person, if you were sitting across the table from them?

I suspect Mr Smith could - his intent appears genuine. But when someone starts knocking another persons character, it takes rather a good deal of courage to do that to the person without the anonymity of being behind a keyboard and monitor.

Click to expand...

You know, just last week I made a spur-of-the-moment decision to visit Canyon de Chelly for the first time, a decision made, in large part, on the beauty of Michael's pictures of the place. This is not a daytrip for me--I'll be flying--and I sent Michael and email asking for advice in working there. He told me to call him. I did, and we talked for probably a half-hour, at around 11 p.m. his time. The guy then gave me his cell phone number, and told me that if I have any questions on the road, or could use any technical advice, or whatever, to call him. He even told me when his cell phone is or isn't on.

John hit the nail right on the head. Smith's intentions are quite genuine. And Jay, I take that kind of generosity quite seriously, not giving a damn about third-party praise. (Although I guess perhaps I'm a third party in this context...)

:rolleyes:

Micheal I do hope that you won't be too dissuaded from sharing your thoughts on APUG from time to time. There are many here (unfortunately I suspect; by their nature they tend to be quieter) that appreciate the comments - Mike Lopez above stands as an example.

The process of evaluating one's own photographs that you have described is extremely efficient and productive, I have found. In fact I was very tempted to post my own thoughts but would not have more to add.

Regarding the negative comments adressed to yourself: of course there are always those who choose to find any negative that they can in a person, and focus on that. But in my experience they tend to be stuck in their own world of self righteousness and self delusion. Certainly they have made a decision that they have nothing to learn from the person to whom they address their derogation, and therefore can afford to offend.
That's rather ironic in my opinion (it is posturing of the worst kind). Besides, one needs a realistic understanding of their own measure against others, in order to be capable of envy or perhaps jealousy. Do they not?